Why is there a natural aversion to being "Slavic" or Eastern?

[Grab the Gauge]

An anonymous e-mail is suddenly more credible than a scientific analysis?

All that analysis did was date a piece of fossilized ivory. We're already aware it's an old piece of a mammoth tusk, but it clearly wasn't carved with flint. It has way too much detail, you can't get that fine with flint tools. The stone is too brittle, the required dimensions too small, the ivory is too hard. You're looking at something produced with a dremel and a steel blade.

[Magnolia]

Why should I be proud of my "homeland" in this case serbia? What has this "Homeland" done to me? Nothing. It's still 3rd world. Nah, as I said, I study and work besides that. It's a dual system 50% studying, 50% working. Something what you can dream of - apparently. At least you admit to be barbarian. You shouldn't cry also. You can be proud of your origin, but I think the Nazis were right, when they declared slav(e)s to subhumans. Btw my ancestors are from graz.

Are you seen as German in Germany?

[Grab the Gauge]

I have a "Roman nose", the opposite of upturned. Does it make me Un-Slavic?

Of course not, because Ancient Romans and Greeks looked like modern Slavs.

I agree, I think he was just talking about what Slavs are stereotyped to have had by anti-Slavs.

[Peterski]

Despite centuries of Germanization policies, many Western Poles proudly preserved their Slavic language. "Rally of autochthons of the Regained Lands" - 23.10.1946 - from Polish Newsreel 36/46:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht2cfvYmZEs#t=08m33s

Skip to 8:33 of the video:

Translation: "(...) The issue of regulating coexistence between settlers and autochthonous Poles of the Regained Lands is an object of special efforts of our young statehood. After first misunderstandings, this coexistence is becoming increasingly more and more successful. This manifestation has demonstrated an unbreakable attitude of Polish people who during centuries of German occupation managed to preserve their greatest treasure - mother tongue and attachment to native culture. (...)"



http://www.repozytorium.fn.org.pl/?q=pl/node/5980

(...)

^^^
But after ~50 years of Communism, some of them have indeed become wannabe-Germans:

[Token]

I never argued against common origin for Mediterranean and Nordic types, but the fact is that they split away quite long time ago, and that Nordic type was brought from steppes, while Mediterranean one was brought from Anatolia.

Highly unlikely. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were probably predominantly dark-complexioned with a skin color similar to modern Southern Europeans considering their location and going by the results of recent genetical studies. Also, genes for blond hair, blue eyes and light skin were found in seven Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers in the Motala site in Southern Sweden according to a research published by the 'Science Magazine', one of best academic journals of the world, so, the theory that light hair came from the steppes with the Indo-Europeans is inaccurate without concrete and modern scientific back-up.

Yet none of those dated the skull by reliable methods, but either assumed it belonged to UP layer of excavations, or dated lithic implements found near it (the first one you posted dated them to the Middle Palaeolithic, which was Neanderthal era).
The actual radiocarbon dating of the skull, however, unmistakenly dated it to post-glacial period (Late Mesolithic).

I searched for others sources sharing this discovery but apparently this German site is the only one, somewhat dubious.

[cosmoo]

All that analysis did was date a piece of fossilized ivory. We're already aware it's an old piece of a mammoth tusk, but it clearly wasn't carved with flint. It has way too much detail, you can't get that fine with flint tools. The stone is too brittle, the required dimensions too small, the ivory is too hard. You're looking at something produced with a dremel and a steel blade.

The explanation was following:
At the same time, radioactive decay set in, leaving its by-products at levels that require thousands of years to build up to the present reading. If the head had been carved anytime in the past few centuries, the decay products on the surface would have been cut away.

This is not the only ivory carving with higher degree of detail, there is much earlier Löwenmensch figurine, for example.

[Grab the Gauge]

Highly unlikely. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were probably predominantly dark-complexioned with a skin color similar to modern Southern Europeans considering their location and going by the results of recent genetical studies. Also, genes for blond hair, blue eyes and light skin were found in seven Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers in the Motala site in Southern Sweden according to a research published by the 'Science Magazine', one of best academic journals of the world, so, the theory that light hair came from the steppes with the Indo-Europeans is inaccurate without concrete and modern scientific back-up.


I searched for others sources sharing this discovery but apparently this German site is the only one, somewhat dubious.

The oldest evidence for Blond hair genes in Europeans is from Afontova Gora 3 which is in the central Asian part of Russia. Blond hair isn't from Europe.

[Peterski]

Are you seen as German in Germany?

http://www.theworldin.com/article/10466/new-germans

[Grab the Gauge]

The explanation was following:
At the same time, radioactive decay set in, leaving its by-products at levels that require thousands of years to build up to the present reading. If the head had been carved anytime in the past few centuries, the decay products on the surface would have been cut away.

This is not the only ivory carving with higher degree of detail, there is much earlier Löwenmensch figurine, for example.

Ivory is a porous material that absorbs elements (including metals from soil) from its surroundings. You can cut in to ivory and still have it dated to thousands of years ago.


The lowenmensch artifact doesn't have nearly as much detail as this piece. This piece actually has depth in the irises and the eyelids. No UP artifact has the extreme facial relief that this thing has, particularly in the eyes and the zygomatic region. No doubt about it, it is a fake.

[cosmoo]

Highly unlikely. The Proto-Indo-Europeans were probably predominantly dark-complexioned with a skin color similar to modern Southern Europeans considering their location and going by the results of recent genetical studies. Also, genes for blond hair, blue eyes and light skin were found in seven Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers in the Motala site in Southern Sweden according to a research published by the 'Science Magazine', one of best academic journals of the world, so, the theory that light hair came from the steppes with the Indo-Europeans is inaccurate without concrete and modern scientific back-up.

1) Not a single one of them had full set of mutations for blond hair, only partial ones (see Genetiker's SNP analysis).
2) Those who did were admixed by EHG (eastern hunter-gatherers, IE ancestors) anyways. Pure WHG and UP Europeans always have dark hair (eventually with alleles for rufosity).

And sample I provided (Afontova Gora 3) was much, much older than those Motala samples. Moreover, within the same time period, all Upper Palaeolithic Europeans tested so far were dark-haired and dark-eyed.
As for supposedly "dark IE cultures"- that is simply not true. The only dark-haired/eyed one was Yamnaya, which didn't contribute much to European ancestry (except to southeastern Europeans). Majority of other IE cultures, such as Corded Ware and Andronovo, were proved to be mainly blond.

I can't believe there is still someone believing in "blond Cro-Magnons" fairy tales.